Heretical Propositions on the Islands
Canaries and Mallorca, 1569-1610
Sondre Midtskogen
HIS 350
MA Thesis in History
Department of Archaeology, History, Cultural Studies and Religion University of Bergen
Spring 2017
I
© Sondre Midtskogen 2017
Heretical Propositions on the Islands – Canaries and Mallorca, 1569-1610 Sondre Midtskogen
https://bora.uib.no/
II
III
Sammendrag
Hensikten med denne masteroppgaven har vært å se nærmere på saker som omhandlet kjetterske utsagn fra den Spanske Inkvisisjonens tribunaler på Kanariøyene og Mallorca. Det har ikke blitt gjort en undersøkelse som har sammenlignet disse to tribunalene tidligere, og det ble ansett som interessant å se hvor forskjellig eller lik behandlingen av sakene var på de to spanske øyene, som lå under hvert sitt kongedømme. Hovedproblemstillingen handler om hvilke forskjeller og likheter det var mellom straffeutmålingen av kjetterske utsagn mellom tribunalene på Kanariøyene og Mallorca fra 1569 til 1610. Hvem inkvisisjonen dømte, hvilke kjetterske utsagn de ble dømt for og hvilken straff de fikk er spørsmål som blir besvart i oppgaven. For å svare på disse spørsmålene ble alle kjente saker angående kjetterske utsagn fra de to øygruppene gjennomgått, fra de såkalte «relaciones de causas» som oppsummerer sakene. Denne oppsummeringen ble skrevet av det enkelte tribunalet som videre var pålagt å sende sakene inn til den Spanske Inkvisisjonens sentralorgan, Suprema.
Ut ifra dette materialet blir de statistiske forskjellene og likhetene mellom tribunalene diskutert. Der kommer det frem at det var en overvekt av menn i midten av 30 årene som ble dømt for kjetterske utsagn på begge tribunalene. Begge tribunalene dømte kvinner og menn i alle aldre, hvor den yngste var 13 år og den eldste 100 år, ifølge kildene. Hos begge
tribunalene var det flest kjetterske utsagn i form av blasfemi, leiermål og ulike heretiske proposisjoner, de største av fem underkategorier lagd for å klassifisere utsagnene i denne masteroppgaven. Den store forskjellen mellom tribunalene var at nesten dobbelt så mange på Mallorca ble dømt for å ha påstått at sex med en ugift kvinne eller mann ikke var en synd. Når det kommer til straffeutmålingen, blir det fort klart at tribunalet på Mallorca generelt sett hadde strengere strafferammer enn deres kolleger på Kanariøyene. Det har blitt lagd et skjema som forsøker å vise alvorlighetsgraden av straff, her fremkommer det tydelig at tribunalet på Mallorca jevnt over gav strengere straffer for kjetterske utsagn. Hele ni personer ble dømt til galeitjeneste, den strengeste straffen gitt til personer dømt for kjetterske utsagn, mens bare en person ble dømt til galeitjeneste av tribunalet på Kanariøyene.
Deretter blir utvalgte enkeltsaker gjennomgått, for å se trendene og variasjonene mellom utsagnene også innenfor de fem kategoriene skapt for å klassifisere proposisjonene.
Der blir det klart at forskjellene blant straffeutmålingen av personer fra samme
sosioøkonomiske bakgrunn som ble dømt for eksakt samme utsagn også fikk en strengere straff av tribunalet på Mallorca.
IV
V
Preface
I would first and foremost like to thank Professor of early modern history Gunnar W.
Knutsen. Without his guidance, knowledge and help throughout the entire process, this master thesis would not have come to fruition. His interest and enthusiasm has spurred me on during the process, invigorating me to try and do my best. I would also like to thank Bruno Costa, PhD Candidate for the University of Bergen for his thorough and astute comments. A sincere thanks to both.
Associate Professor Arne Solli and the rest of the early modern history seminar has also been very helpful with insightful comments, time and effort in helping to improve this study. The rest of the master students at the University of Bergen, both at the breakroom and study room 314, has been an important factor in making the long days at the university enjoyable.
Finally, thanks to my sister Veslemøy Midtskogen and Simon Pettitt for taking the time to give some feedback on my early work and commenting on my grammar, giving me plenty of tips on how to improve my vocabulary and sentence structure.
VI Table of Contents
Sammendrag ... III Preface ... V
1. Introduction ... 1
1.1 Thesis ... 2
1.2 Theme ... 4
1.3 How the Spanish Inquisition operated ... 7
1. 4 Method ... 9
1.5 Research status ... 10
1.6 Structure ... 11
2. Statistical analysis ... 13
2.1 Gender ... 13
2.2 Age ... 15
2.3 Type of offences committed ... 16
2.4 Social and Economic Status ... 19
2.5 Punishment ... 23
2.6 The suspended cases ... 27
3. In-depth analysis ... 29
3.1 The Relaciones de Causas as a source... 29
3.2 Simple Fornication ... 31
3.2.1 Simple Fornication on the Canary Islands ... 32
3.2.2 Simple Fornication on Mallorca ... 37
3.2.3 Comparison of the Offence of Simple Fornication. ... 43
3.3 Blasphemous Propositions ... 43
3.3.1 Blasphemous Propositions on the Canary Islands ... 44
3.3.2 Blasphemous Propositions on Mallorca ... 54
3.3.3 Comparison of the Offence of Blasphemous Propositions ... 66
3.4 Various heretical propositions ... 67
3.4.1 Various Heretical Propositions on the Canary Islands ... 68
3.4.2 Various Heretical Propositions on Mallorca ... 74
3.4.3 Comparison of the Offence of Various Heretical Propositions ... 80
3.5 Statements about Marriage and Virginity ... 81
VII
3.5.1 Statements about Marriage and Virginity on the Canary Islands ... 82
3.5.2 Statements about Marriage and Virginity on Mallorca ... 85
3.5.3 Comparison of the Offence of Statements about Marriage and Virginity ... 87
3.6 Various scandalous propositions ... 87
3.6.1 Various Scandalous Propositions on the Canary Islands ... 88
3.6.2 Various Scandalous Propositions on Mallorca ... 90
3.6.3 Comparison of various scandalous propositions ... 93
4. Conclusion ... 94
Sources ... 99
Litterature ... 102
1
1. Introduction
The intent of this master thesis is to look at the cases concerning heretical propositions that the Spanish Inquisition prosecuted, and compare the two island tribunals of Mallorca and the Canary Islands. Differences in which statements are considered an offence and thereby pursued by the two courts and differences in sentencing levels will be the focal point throughout the master thesis. The two tribunals on Mallorca and in the Canaries are the objectives of study in this study based on the fact that both exist on an island, making them less accessible to the Spanish Inquisitions power base located in mainland Spain, therefore, theoretical a higher chance of more of an autonomy in the tribunals.
With the Papal Bull 1. November 1478, Pope Sixtus IV allowed the creation of the Spanish Inquisition in Castile under the command of the Spanish Royalty and allowed the appointment of three inquisitors in the kingdom of Castile. The previous Inquisition were never properly dismantled in the kingdom of Aragon, and the Spanish Inquisition took over the mantle and entered the kingdom with the first appointed inquisitor in 1481.1 Moreover, by 1493, there were 23 different tribunals of the Inquisition in Spain, a higher number of
tribunals then ever seen before by another inquisition.2
The Spanish Inquisition’s activities in the newly conquered territories of the Canary Islands was overseen by te tribunal in Seville during the formative years after they wew given mandate over the archipelago in 1488.3 This arrangement, however, did not last very long when it became clear that the visitations demanded of the inquisitors over to the Canary Islands were both expensive and time-consuming. As a result of this, the inquisitors in Seville did not prioritise the visitations, which was an important part of every inquisitor’s duty.
Therefore, in 1505 a new tribunal was created in Las Palmas, and an inquisitor was appointed to the Canary Islands.4 The newly appointed inquisitor operated alone in the first ten years of his tenure. During these years he conducted twenty cases that are known, with thirteen of
1 Contreras, J., & Dedieu, J. P. (1980). "Geografía de la inquisición española: La formación de los distritos" ("1470-1820"). Hispania, 40, 144. Read 30 January 2017
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1300494284?accountid=8579 p. 40
2 Contreras et al, "Geografía de la inquisición" p. 42
3 Ronquillo Rubio, Manuela. Los Orígenes de la Inquisición en Canarias 1488-1526. Las Palmas: Abildo insular de Gran Canaria, 1991 p. 55
4 Ronquillo, Los Orígenes p. 60
2
them tried in 1510.5 The Spanish historian Manuela Ronquillo Rubio, who in 1991 wrote a book on the origins of the tribunal, also points out that its creation was not only as a means to find heretics, but was also a part of a unification process. The islands were a newly conquered territory of Spain that needed to be institutionalised in the Castilian way, both politically and religiously. The task of the inquisitors in Seville was to monitor the situation and gather information until a tribunal could be established on the islands that could deal with the problem as they saw it.6
The tribunal on Mallorca was founded in the summer of 1488 when the former inquisitor in Barcelona was appointed to stay in the city of Palma on Mallorca. He was to have jurisdiction over Mallorca, Menorca and adjacent islands.7 That gives the inquisitor in Mallorca approximately 4887km2 of land where he was responsible for the people living the Balearic archipelago.8 The Canaries, on the other hand, consists of seven islands with a total of 7253 km2 of land that the tribunal had jurisdiction and was responsible for.9 There is also a considerable difference in distance to mainland Spain. The distance from the coastal line from Cadíz in mainland Spain to the city of Las Palmas in Gran Canaria, where the Inquisition’s tribunal was located in the Canaries, is approximately 1268 kilometres.10 From Palma on Mallorca to the city of Barcelona, there are around 200 kilometres.11 One can assume that being closer to the mainland, meant that the Mallorca tribunal had more contact with the mainland Spain, and therefore easier to exert control over by the powers in Spain.
1.1 Thesis
“What are the differences and similarities in sentencing concerning the cases of heretical proposition between the two island tribunals of the Canaries and Mallorca from 1569 to 1610?”
5 Fajardo Spínola, Francisco. Las Víctimas de la Inquisición en las Islas Canarias. La Laguna: Francisco Lemus Editor, 2005 p. 287
6 Ronquillo, Los Orígenes p. 58-60
7 Escandell, Bartolomé Bonet, Joaquin Perez Villanueva. Historia de la Inquisicion en
España y America: Las estructuras del Santo Oficio. Spain: Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos.
2000 p. 34
8 Ross, MacPhee D. E. Extinctions in Near Time Causes, Contexts and Consequences. New York: Kluwer Academic/ Plenum Publishers. 1999 p. 166
9 Contreras et al, "Geografía de la inquisición" p. 46
10 https://www.freemaptools.com/measure-distance.htm 07.03.2017
11 https://www.freemaptools.com/measure-distance.htm 07.03.2017
3
The main information needed to be able to answer the research question lies within the Inquisition’s trial records, Relaciones de causas, shortened to RDC throughout the rest of this study. The RDC is a summary of the trial records of the Spanish Inquisition. In these
documents, one can find information about the alleged offence, committed by the defendant and the outcome of the trial. A more thorough presentation of the RDC sources will be explained in depth in Chapter 3.1. It might be relevant to consider the age and education of the accused, when the sources provides that kind of information, which is not always the case.
Extracting these types of information will provide a good platform for a discussion about whether there are significant differences in the practice of the two different tribunals. Are there differences in which part of Spanish society the offenders on the two archipelagos predominantly belonged to? Is there an overweight of people who worked in the primary sector, or are there more of the prominent and educated punished for the offence of heretical propositions? Do lower class citizens receive stricter sentences in one of the two tribunals, or does the punishment correlate with the offence in both courts?
The timeframe chosen for this study has been decided on the basis of Dedieu’s statement that the offence of heretical propositions did not become a significant part of the Spanish Inquisitions jurisdiction before 1560.12 1569 is selected as a starting point because this is the year where the earliest RDC from one of the two tribunals exists.13 The reason for choosing 1610 as the last year of investigation is that it will give a good representation over time.
During these 41 years, the percentage of cases that the Inquisition dealt with concerning heretical propositions was at its peak, solidifying this as an important phase of the Spanish Inquisition to study. Even though the earliest RDC available from the tribunal on Mallorca is from 1579, ten years after the first RDC in the Canaries, it does not make the cases in 1569 in the Canaries less relevant for comparison, since they are both after the alleged shift in focus in the 1560’s. According to Monter, the first annual report from the tribunal on Mallorca is from 1579 because that year a veteran inquisitor were appointed to the archipelago, where a local unpaid inquisitor had operated previously. After that, the system of annual reports functioned very smoothly, even in as he writes, “unimportant” places like Mallorca.14
12 Dedieu Jean-Pierre. ”El modelo religioso: las disciplinas del lenguaje y de la acción” 208- 230. In Inquisición española: poder politico y control social, by Bennassar, Bartolomé Barcelona: Editorial Crítica, 1984 p. 212-13
13 Dropping the RDC from 1569 and starting at 1570, would mean dropping 22 cases from the Canaries, which is a considerable amount of the 173 cases involving heretical proposition in the Canaries during this time
14 Monter, William. Frontiers of Heresy Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. p. 71
4 1.2 Theme
“Propositions are verbal statements containing expressions contrary to the Holy Scripture, as the Catholic Church interpreted them or against what the Church taught; but also, against the authority and respect due to their ministers and their hierarchy.”15
Heretical propositions were not a significant part of the Spanish Inquisition’s workload or focus during the earliest years of the institution’s existence. There was a notable turn happening in this regard in the years from 1550 to 1560. During this time, the inquisitors received a new instruction to also deal with “Christian offences”, rather than Judaism and other non-Christian offences like Islamism that had previously occupied most of the
inquisitor’s time.16 According to Kamen, the offence of heretical proposition was a category dominated by the “Old Christians”, meaning individuals decedent from a long line of Christians. The offence of heretical proposition was not, something Moriscos or Conversos often found themselves accused of having committed.17 Kamen continues to write that the spoken word at this time in history, even though the written word was preferred, the spoken word were deemed as of similar value because of the still high number of illiterates. In the 15th century, being literate one could say was a privilege rather than the norm. Therefore one can say that the spoken word was “everything”. Consequently, the two main powers in Spain, the Catholic Church and the Royalty, deemed unwanted utterings even more severe and
“dangerous” than one might consider it in today’s society.
Propositions in this context are defined as those expressions uttered by a Christian in which opposing views were reflected, either to articles of faith, the essence of the Catholic faith, against the teachings of the Catholic Church or Holy Scripture. The propositions,
therefore, contain either contradictions of dogmatic definitions, doubt about the validity of the doctrines of the Catholic Church, the denial of saints or the denial of other holy traditions, such as communion, confession and so on. “The heretical proposition is, in short, that which is clearly contrary to any of the statements taken as Catholic truths, meaning it is defined as
15 Fajardo Las victimas p. 141 “Con el nombre de “proposiciones” se denominaba a las expresiones verbales que contuvieran afirmaciones contrarias a las Sagradas Escrituras, tal como la Iglesia Católica las interpretaba, a lo que la Iglesia misma enseñaba y a sus
mandamientos; así como a la autoridad y respeto que se debia a sus jeraquías y a sus ministros.”
16 Dedieu, Jean-Pierre. ”El modelo” p. 208
17 Kamen, Henry The Spanish Inquisition: An Historical Revision. London: Weidenfeld &
Nicolson, 1997 p. 260
5
matters of faith.”18 When the inquisitors were dealing with the issue of heretical propositions, it was necessary for them to both determine whether the expression had been uttered, and if the exteriorized belief related to matters of faith which in itself was constitutive of a crime.
Thought alone could suffice to commit such a crime, and the words used might cause scandal, but also the rationale for their use could constitute an offence. During this process is where the judicial and prosecutorial investigation of the inquisitors came in, to establish the
correspondence between thought and its expression. Moreover, to rule on whether the conduct of the accused was severe enough to merit a response, and then to deal out the necessary sanctions or punishment.19
The Spanish Inquisition also operated with several different subcategories of propositions. The severity of the propositions depended on, in part, the importance of the belief that was opposed. The Spanish Inquisition and theologians, therefore, distinguished between different categories of propositions. A single proposition could be considered to belong to several different categories. In chapter 2, there will be an attempt to create a single category for each proposition, using categories created for this master thesis, whilst now the categories that the inquisitors used themselves will be presented.
A proposition deemed heretical is one that openly contradicted some questions of faith, and is a very severe proposition. A proposition with suspicion of heresy, however, was not treated as openly contradictory, and the person having said the proposition was deemed to have done so without the intent of contradicting the teachings of the Catholic Church. Other categories the inquisitors used were erroneous propositions, that is a proposition that contains something contradictory to doctrine but not defined or a secondary issue. The Spanish
Inquisition also used the closely related categories of scandalous, reckless, impious and timorous propositions.
The final category of blasphemy is on the other hand much more complex and contrary to the other categories, also under the jurisdiction of civil and ecclesiastical law.20 The word blasphemy originates from the Greek word “blaptein” meaning “to injure” and
“pheme” “reputation”. The Catholic Encyclopaedia describes blasphemy as “gross irreverence
18 Alejandre, Juan Antonio, María Jesús Torquemada. Palabra De Hereje : La Inquisición De Sevilla Ante El Delito De Proposiciones. Colección De Bolsillo / Universidad De Sevilla.
Sevilla: Universidad de Sevilla, Secretariado de Publicaciones, 1998.p. 17
19 Alejandre, Torquemada Palabra De Hereje p. 15
20 Fajardo Las Victimas p. 141
6
towards any person or thing worthy of exalted esteem.”21 Before 1560 the few cases that the Spanish Inquisition had with the offence of blasphemy were dealt with quickly, often with spiritual punishment and a fine.22 After 1560, the Inquisition started to take these offences a lot more serious with some severe cases receiving the harshest punishments besides the actual death sentence, galley service. Even though the punishments became more severe, it was not common to be given such a harsh punishment for uttering a heretical proposition. 23 Dedieu further writes that there existed a discrepancy between penances imposed by the Holy
Office24 and the theological seriousness of blasphemy. Theologically blasphemy is considered to be a mortal sin. The inquisitors seem to have understood the “true nature” of blasphemy. In most cases with a few exceptions, the person accused of having uttered something
blasphemous does not question the Catholic faith with intent but is a result of ignorance, anger or despair.25 Blasphemy is often related to swearing. Words like “Reniego de Dios”, which translates to “I deny God”, or “Pese Dios” meaning “despite God” are examples of typical blasphemous propositions. The propositions were in most circumstances spoken during some argument or in a situation where the blasphemer probably did not necessarily literally mean what he said.
The offence of heretical proposition, with all its subcategories, is the offence that this study is examining. A member of another faith uttering heresies with a connection to another religion goes under their specific category, like Judaism or Islamism. There are however cases where Old Christians say something favourable about the Islamic faith, Muslims or
Protestants or their teachings and it is categorised as a heretical proposition and not as a specific faith offence, because of the defendant’s lineage and the suspect’s Catholic identity.
What kind of heretical propositions that was being said, or claimed to have been uttered, we know today thanks to the inquisitors and the notaries who wrote them down. However, it is important to keep in mind and understand that the notaries of the Spanish Inquisition were not some ancient Dictaphone, a neutral object writing everything down exactly as it happened during the trials. The notaries worked for and were paid by the Inquisition, and we cannot be certain that every defendant did commit the offence they were accused of committing.26 The
21 Melody, John. "Blasphemy." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 2. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907. 5 May 2016 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02595a.htm>.
22 Dedieu, ”El modelo” p. 212-13
23 Dedieu, ”El modelo” p. 214
24 Holy Office is another word for the Spanish Inquisition
25 Dedieu, ”El modelo” p. 214-15
26 Fajardo Las Víctimas p. 142
7
cases do not necessarily reflect what was said, but it gives a strong indication of what was said, or at least what the powers at the time in Spain and the Catholic Church deemed as unwanted thoughts and beliefs. The interest of this study, however, is not to find out if the person said the proposition they were accused of, but the interest lies in what was considered punishable and the outcome of the case.
1.3 How the Spanish Inquisition operated
Provincial tribunals of the Inquisition were set up all throughout Spain, both in Castile and Aragón, and had to answer to the central power called the Suprema. The Suprema, presided over by the Inquisitor General, co-ordinated the Inquisition’s activities in the provinces.
Annual reports from the provinces were sent to the Suprema, and in this way, they had more of a direct influence over the provincial tribunals.27 These reports are called “Relaciones de causas”, and they are the sources used in this thesis. Helen Rawlings wrote in her book The Spanish Inquisition that the tribunals were staffed by two or three inquisitors, who got the job based on their academic prowess and the purity of their blood, which was a paramount concept in Spain during this time. The term limpieza de sangre, purity of blood, was the term and law used to keep people with another heritage than Christian from holding important positions in the state.
This composition was the ideal, and not always reflected the reality, as William Monter writes in his book Frontiers of Heresy from 1989. He writes that the Suprema complained to Philip II, the then reigning king of Spain in 1578.
“Until now in the Inquisition of the Kingdom of Mallorca there has been only one Inquisitor, and he and the ministers of that Inquisition are all natives who serve in these offices without any salary. These officials use their offices badly and lack the honesty and style of life which are requited for such a holy ministry.”28
The letter culminated in the appointment of a veteran inquisitor from the outside.29 However, he underlines that there were difficulties in staffing remote and obscure tribunals in the Aragonese kingdom throughout the Inquisition’s history, as the example from the tribunal on Mallorca shows.30
27 Rawlings, Helen. The Spanish Inquisition. Oxford: Blackwell publishing, 2006 p. 24-26
28 Monter, Frontiers p. 60
29 Monter, Frontiers p.71
30 Monter, Frontiers p.61
8
There were also others on the Inquisition’s payroll, some notaries, a constable, a prosecutor and an assessor.31 Inquisitors were required since 1500 to travel throughout their appointed district in search of offenders. When they arrived on these visitations, they read an edict of faith after Mass on Sunday, where everyone was to swear an oath pledging allegiance to the Inquisition and the Catholic faith. They were also prompted to come forward and denounce their sins, or the sins of someone else in the village. When someone was denounced, the inquisitor along with calificador determined whether the offence fell into a category of heresy and if it did, the person was arrested and put in the Inquisition’s prison to await his or her trial. The belongings of the prisoner were also confiscated. The trial was then carried out in three separate hearings, where personal details, information about lineage, and witness statements was considered. The accused was also allowed a lawyer during his proceedings, whose main job was to make sure the rules of the Inquisition was followed and entice the defendant to confess so that the inquisitors could save the soul of the perpetrator.32
Henningsen writes that not all defendants were convicted based on genuine and freely given confessions and that the inquisitors in their devotion to saving the souls of the
defendants tended to make witness statements fit in with the denunciation rather than
examining all the facts.33 Torture was also a tool that could be used to obtain a confession or to clarify the intent behind the offence, but it was never used as a punishment. Modern research suggests that around a quarter of those charged with major heresy was tortured and under 5 percent of the people accused of lesser offences were tortured.34 The inquisitors along with a representative of the local bishop called ordinario and several legal or theological advisors, consultores, then voted on the sentence to be imposed. The ruling was publicly proclaimed to the rest of the community during an auto de fe, or during Mass. When the convicted was sentenced at Mass and not during an auto de fe, it was usually during a holiday, which was when the crowds were largest.35
The auto de fe is described by Rawlings as a stage-managed theatrical event, a costly event where the convicted people were gathered and made to walk in a procession to the
31 Rawlings, The Spanish p. 26-27
32 Rawlings, The Spanish p. 29-32
33 Henningsen, Gustav. The Witches’ Advocate. Basque Witchcraft and the Spanish Inquisition (1609-1614). Reno: University of Nevada Press, 1980 p. 43
34 Rawlings, The Spanish p. 33
35 Rawlings, The Spanish p. 37
9
church during the day, where their offence and sentence was read aloud.36 Whatever they possessed were confiscated by the Inquisition and had to wear the penitential garment called sambenito. The length of time they had to wear it varied with the offence, but after the person was allowed to take off the garment, it was hung up in the parish church with the name of the convicted attached to it, so that everyone could see and remember. The harshest punishment, the death penalty, was according to Helen Rawlings only given in two and a quarter percent of all the cases between 1560 and 1614, amounting to 637 individuals.37 No one was given the death penalty by the Inquisition in the Canaries or Mallorca during that time.38
1. 4 Method
The primary method utilised in this study is, to a great extent the use of comparison. The research question is itself a comparative question, making the use of comparative method necessary. What are the possible dangers of using such a method, and what are the advantages? Comparing the offence of heretical proposition between two tribunals of the Spanish Inquisition in the same timeframe makes it a synchronic comparison. That makes it easier to use the comparative method without the need of too much abstract thinking because the empirical complexity is reduced. Leidulf Melve points out in his article about comparative history that even though it is a synchronic comparison, there might be significant differences in the historical context of what one want to compare.39 Comparing the tribunal in the
Canaries and Mallorca does not belong to entirely different historical contexts, although there are some differences even though both are island communities in Spain.
One such difference is that the Canaries were a relatively newly conquered territory, less than 100 years ago, at the start of this comparison, while Mallorca had been a part of the kingdom of Aragon since 1230.40 The geography, mainly distance from mainland Spain as seen before and the ethnicity of parts of the population. The Balearic Islands, being part of the kingdom of Aragon, and previous to that, the islands had been held by Muslims for a little
36 Rawlings, The Spanish p. 37-41
37 Rawlings, The Spanish p. 35
38 Gunnar W. Knutsen, Mauricio Drelichman, Jean-Pierre Dedieu and Gustav
Henningsen, Early Modern Inquisition Database (EMID). Accessed date: 28.10. 2016
39 Melve, Leidulf. «Komparativ historie: Ei utfordring for historiefaget?». Historisk tidsskrift 88, nr. 1 (2009): 61-90 p. 67
40 Santamaría Arández, Álvaro. «Precisiones sobre la expansión marítima de la Corona de Aragón». Anales de la Universidad de Alicante. Historia Medieval, N. 8 (1990-1991). 187- 255 13.02.17 http://rua.ua.es/dspace/handle/10045/6987
10
more than 300 years, shaping the culture.41 The Balearic Islands are also close to Italy, and the North African countries of Algeria and Tunis, and every other country in the
Mediterranean Sea. While the population in the Canaries, being newly conquered would have more of a settler like population, with some aboriginal people, The Canary Islands was also a trading outpost and an important port for the ships that ventured over to the new territories in the Americas. Therefore, there would have been a large group of sailors from England, Portugal, Spain stopping in their ports. That coincides with looking at the ethnicity of the victims of the Inquisition on the Canary Islands from 1569 to 1610. The RDC’s show there are plenty of Portuguese and Englishmen tried by the tribunal in this period. These differences in geography and population one can assume influenced the tribunals in who and what kind of offences were committed.
Melve also points out that historians while conducting the synchronic comparison, tend to focus on dissimilarities rather than similarities, which is the logical and natural thing to do.42 However, this can contribute to a distorted view of the past in question. If one is looking for differences and there are few to find, one might tend to put more of an emphasis on those differences than they deserve. In a sense, one can create an image of the past that does not give an accurate reflection of the past. Another problem Melve points out is that even when comparing something close both in time and space, it might not be that the sources are comparable.43The sources in this study, however, are of the same nature, being reports from the local tribunal to the central powers of the institution.
1.5 Research status
Heretical propositions in the Canaries is something the historian Francisco Fajardo Spínola has written about in his book, Las Víctimas de la Inquisición en las Islas Canarias, a book centred around the people convicted by the Holy Office. Fajardo dedicates a chapter to the offence of heretical propositions and starts by mentioning that one-third of the Inquisition’s cases during its lifespan in the Canaries were because of a verbal slip by the accused.44 The crime was also a masculine offence, with 590 men and only 132 women tried in this category.
Heretical proposition, according to Fajardo was more of a masculine offence than the other offences with 81,7% of the convicted being men, when the male percentage in all offences is
41 Santamaría «Precisiones sobre» p. 191
42 Melve «Komparativ historie», p. 67
43 Melve «Komparativ historie», p. 73
44 Fajardo Las víctimas p. 143
11
73,7%.45 One can also read from his work that the age of the typical offender was somewhat younger than the average, but he claims this is because of the nature of the other offences are more common to commit in advanced age. Almost nine out of ten of the accused were of Spanish or European heritage, where all offences combined had an average of a little under eight out of ten, 58% were native of the Canaries, while the average is around 53,5%.46 This information strengthens what Kamen found to be true about the Inquisition that Old Christians dominate the offences of heretical proposition. The offence of heretical proposition on the Balearic archipelago is a subject without any substantial work dedicated to the crime during the period of this study. However, Monter does cover some of the cases of heretical proposition in his book Frontiers of Heresy, where he writes about heresy in the Aragonese tribunals. The tribunal on Mallorca is not a part of the five tribunals with their own chapter but is mentioned sporadically throughout the book.
1.6 Structure
This study consists of two main parts. Chapter two is a statistical chapter, where the aim of the chapter is to show the statistical differences and similarities between the two tribunals.
The information used to create the statistics comes from the RDC’s which is the trial
summaries and is further explained in chapter 3.1. The Early Modern Inquisition Database is also single out the cases containing heretical proposition. The statistical chapter presents the average age and gender of the people convicted of heretical propositions, along with the social and economic status of the offenders, which in turn gives a clear presentation in whom the Spanish Inquisition convicted of such crimes on the two archipelagos. What type of heretical proposition the tribunals prosecuted is also answered in chapter 2.3, along with the severity of punishment, which will be presented in chapter 2.5, along with introducing a severity of punishment scale created for this study. The last part of the statistical chapter is a short presentation of the few cases during this period that was suspended.
The third chapter contains a presentation and analysis of selected individual cases. The chapter is split into six main subchapters, with some divided into even more subchapters. The main goal of chapter three is to show the differences and similarities in the cases by analysing both the uncommon and common cases in each subcategory of the heretical proposition. The first subchapter, 3.1, contains a presentation of the trial records called RDC, explaining what
45 Fajardo Las víctimas p. 143
46 Fajardo Las víctimas p. 143
12
kind of information the sources can reveal, and more importantly, what they might not reveal.
Afterwards, from chapter 3.2 until 3.6, selected cases from each subcategory of both the tribunals are presented and analysed, with a comparison.
The final chapter, contains a summary of the findings presented in this study, and a conclusion regarding whom the two tribunals prosecuted, and for what, along with the punishment issued by the court.
13
2. Statistical analysis
Between 1569 and 1610, the tribunals on Mallorca and the Canary Islands had, according to the harvested data extracted from the Early Modern Inquisition Database, 878 cases in total.47 Of these 878 cases, 348 of them are cases concerning heretical propositions.48 Which results in a total of 39,6% of the cases that were tried and convicted by the Spanish Inquisition on Mallorca and the Canaries, which were against someone having said a heretical proposition.
The percentage gives an indication that the offence of heretical proposition was a significant and widespread offence in this period. When one also takes into consideration that, according to Henningsen and Contreras there is a total of 10 categories of punishable offences in total, 39,6% is a very high amount indeed.49 In the Canary Islands, during the 41 years’ in question, there was a total of 480 cases, and of these 171 of them contained people accused of having uttered something that was considered a danger to the faith and the faithful.50 Over one-third of every trial held by the tribunal during this period was against someone accused of a
heretical proposition. On Mallorca, 177 out of 398 cases were against someone who had made a heretical proposition.51 That is 44,5% of every case the tribunal dealt with, almost half of every trial were against people accused of this specific category. These numbers can only be said to strengthen what Dedieu wrote when he claimed that the offence of heretical
proposition was one of the major offences that the Holy Office dealt with during these years.52
2.1 Gender
Fajardo found that the offence of heretical propositions, during the entirety of the tribunals lifespan in the Canaries, was dominated by male offenders, with 81,7% of them being men. 53 The same can be said for the period of 1569 to 1610, with an even higher percentage of male offenders. 144 men tried under the category of heretical proposition during the period, which
47 Knutsen et al, EMID Accessed date: 28.10. 2016
48 Knutsen et al, EMID Accessed date: 28.10. 2016
49 Henningsen, Gustav. ”La elocuencia de los números: Promesas de las ”relaciones de causas” inquisitoriales para la nueva historia social”, In Inquisición española y mentalidad inquisitorial, by Àngel Alcalà and others, 207-225. Barcelona: Editorial Ariel, S.A., 1984 p.
213
50 Knutsen et al, EMID Accessed date: 12.05.2017
51 Knutsen et al, EMID Accessed date: 12.05.2017
52 Dedieu, ”El modelo” p. 214
53 Fajardo Las víctimas p. 143
14
is 83,2% of the total.54 There were only 29 women tried and sentenced found in the RDC, a low 16,8%.55 On Mallorca, the cases are also dominated by male offenders, as it is in the Canaries, but not as dominant of a percentage as seen in the Canaries. 135 men, 76,3% of the offenders on Mallorca were male, which makes the female percentage 23,7%, with 42 women in total.56 6,9% more female offenders were sentenced on Mallorca than in the Canaries.
Granted this is not a very high number, but it is still interesting to consider the reasons for these small differences. One of the reasons that there was a considerably higher number of male offenders might be as simple a reason as wine. In the age of the tavern, wine and
gambling were a large part of the society, and one could argue that drunk people tend to have looser tongues and say things without thinking that might get them in trouble. A number of the individuals convicted of uttering heretical proposition blamed the effect of wine and being drunk. Accusations of having blasphemed while playing card games, which for the most part happened in taverns and almost certainly involved some alcohol, was not unusual. Another possible reason for the higher number of men prosecuted for the offence of heretical
propositions might stem from the fact that the Canaries was still a newly conquered territory and therefore more of a settler like population. Combined with being a trading outpost, and with a large number of ships stopping there, the male to female ratio in the Canaries was probably dominated by the male presence. There was also, according to Ronquillo, who wrote a book on the origins of the Spanish Inquisition in the Canaries, a large, predominantly male, black and Morisco population on the islands. The need for labourers on the islands was great, so they imported, mostly slaves, but also some free men from the coast of Africa. The
imported workforce was forced to convert to Catholicism but did not receive any instruction in the Catholic faith, and they kept their traditions, which lead to many cases involving sorcery during Inquisition’s formative years on the archipelago.57
The question about which type of propositions the women were convicted of having uttered arises as a result. The propositions said by women, in both tribunals, is as varied as the men’s crimes. In chapter 2.2 different categories of offences will be explained in detail, and the women are represented in every category in both tribunals. On Mallorca, heretical propositions and blasphemy were the most common offences amongst women, with simple fornication with nearly as many, even though statistically, statements about marriage and
54 Knutsen et al, EMID
55 Knutsen et al, EMID Accessed date: 12.05.2017
56 Knutsen et al, EMID Accessed date: 12.05.2017
57 Ronquillo Los orígenes p. 56-57
15
virginity had the highest ratio of women, with half of the convicted of such propositions being women. In the Canaries, the situation is fairly similar. Heretical propositions and blasphemy is the largest group, with the rest of the categories each having a small number of women sentenced for that offence, whilst statements about marriage and virginity had the highest ratio of female offenders, with only one more male offender.
2.2 Age
The average age of a person sentenced under the category of heretical proposition from 1569 to 1610 was 35 years of age. The difference between the tribunals is so minuscule that it is under 1-year difference in the average age. The only difference to be found is the average age of convicted females. In the Canaries, the average age of a female offender was 37, whilst on Mallorca, the average age was 34. The range spanned in total from as young as down to a convicted of the Inquisition that was only 13 years old, and as old as 100 years according to the RDCs. In some cases, especially the earliest sources, the age is not included in the RDCs, but in most cases, information about the age of the offender is provided, either the exact age or in some cases, an approximation. The Spanish Inquisition followed the Canon Law when judging the legal age of minority.58 According to the Canon Law, the age of reason is at seven
58 Boudinhon, A. (1910). Canon Law. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved March 3, 2017 from New
Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09056a.htm
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
0-20 21-40 41-60 61+
7
46
21
6 4
10
4 2
10,81
43,92
16,89
3,38 4,05
15,54
4,05 1,35
Percentage of offenders in age groups
Men on the Canary Islands Women on the Canary Islands Men on Mallorca Women on Mallorca
16
years old. A seven-year-old is deemed to be morally responsible for his or her action.59 The Canon Law and the Spanish Inquisition gives leniency towards people under the age of 25, and in some of the RDC’s, they differ the witnesses as below or above the age of 25. The reason for this being that the age of 25 was the legal age of majority according to Canon Law.
In most cases concerning very young or very old people, the report mentions that the verdict has taken into consideration the accused age and adapted the penalty accordingly. The law concerning the age of majority were followed by the Inquisition and were relevant both for males and females, since the cases where the age of the witnesses is listed, they state not only whether the male witnesses were above the age of majority, but also the female witnesses, indicating that the age of majority also mattered amongst women.
2.3 Type of offences committed
When getting an overview of what kind of heretical proposition the Spanish Inquisition prosecuted, there are in some cases subcategories created by the inquisitors. Other cases do not have a categorization, just an explanation of the incident which led to the denunciation and trial. Therefore, the cases against heretical proposition are put in subcategories created for this master thesis in an attempt to make it easier to make a comparison of similar cases. In a lot of the trial summaries, the calificador60 has ascertained that the proposition in question qualifies as either heretical, blasphemous, or a number of other categories. Most propositions qualify in multiple categories, and several offenders were prosecuted for having uttered many propositions that could fit in several categories. In this study, when a proposition has qualified as heretical and blasphemous, it has been categorised as blasphemous. All the propositions in this sample are heretical in nature, which entails that a proposition cannot be blasphemous without being heretical.
During the attempt to categorise the propositions, five subcategories have been chosen to represent the offence committed. “Blasphemy” is used as a sub-category, and what
constitutes a blasphemous proposition has been thoroughly described in chapter 1.2. The category of simple fornication, as blasphemy were subcategories that the tribunals also
59 Delany, J. (1907). Age of Reason. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved March 2, 2017 from New
Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01209a.htm
60 “Inquisitorial consultant (normally a theologian) who read books or testimony collected by inquisitors in order to assess the type and amount of heresy that was involved.” Rawlings, The Spanish p. 157
17
operated with and is being used as a sub-category of heretical propositions in this study also.
The propositions placed in this category were propositions that claimed it was not a sin for a man to have sex with an unmarried woman, or argued that it was not a mortal sin. James Casey writes about the Inquisition in his book, Early Modern Spain a Social History, and explains the types of offences in this category in a splendid way.
“The Inquisition for its part began to take an increasing interest in Castile from the middle of the sixteenth century in fornication, though in a curiously indirect way, as befitted a tribunal which was supposed to limit itself to heresy. Thus, it could not punish men for illicit sexual relations, but it would whip and shame them for boasting that it was no grave sin to lie with an unmarried woman if she consented.”61
Various heretical propositions is another sub-category of propositions, where the contents of the proposition vary a lot, unlike the simple fornication proposition. The contents of a proposition under this category are thoroughly described in chapter 3.4.1 and 3.4.2, where the individual cases are presented. A proposition in this category range from
propositions about what happens after one dies, to other propositions with a hint of Protestant ideology, such as propositions about the folly of confession and that one only needs to confess to God. “Statements against marriage and virginity” is the fourth category created for this study. The category contains the trials against individuals uttering statements that elevated the married life, claiming or hinting that it was a holier life than living in celibacy. The final sub- category is “various scandalous propositions”. The convicted in this category did not fit in any of the four aforementioned categories because they were very different from the rest in the category, and most were deemed by the calificador as scandalous with no mention of heresy or the suspicion of it.
The suspended cases are omitted from the statistic in this part, because of the lack of punishment in those few cases. 1 case from Mallorca and 17 from the Canaries ended with the accused being let go and will be presented in Chapter 2.6.62
During the 41 years from 1569 to 1610, there was a total of 154 cases in the Canaries that led to a conviction of accused.63 The largest of the subcategories in the Canaries is the
“various heretical propositions” category with 57 cases, closely followed by the category of blasphemy with 52 cases. 70,8% of the people convicted of heretical proposition in the
61 Casey, James. Early Modern Spain: a Social History. London: Routledge, 1999. p. 207
62 Knutsen et al, EMID Accessed date: 12.05.2017
63 Knutsen et al, EMID Accessed date: 12.05.2017
18
Canaries uttered propositions that were deemed either as blasphemous or heretical. There were 30 people sentenced for having uttered a version of the simple fornication proposition.
Ten people uttered a proposition which claimed that marriage was a holier state to be in than living in celibacy, whilst five people were found guilty of having said words that put them under the category of “various scandalous propositions”.
Looking that the numbers from the tribunal on Mallorca, there are slight differences in what kind of propositions the convicted offenders was said to have uttered. Simple fornication is the largest category with 56 offenders, closely followed by the category of various heretical propositions with 55 offenders. Blasphemy, as seen in the numbers from the tribunal in the Canaries has almost the same number of convicted as the various heretical propositions category, with 53 convicted offenders, making it the third largest category in this tribunal.
The biggest difference between the two tribunals is the category of simple fornication.
31,82% of the cases from the tribunal on Mallorca was against someone accused of simple fornication, making it the largest subcategory of heretical proposition from that court during these years. In the Canaries, simple fornication was the third largest subcategory during this period with 19,48% of the cases. In both locations, various heretical proposition along with blasphemous utterings were significant subcategories.
There were several women convicted of heretical propositions that worked as prostitutes at a brothel, whilst none of the convicted in the Canaries were named as prostitutes. One might speculate whether there was more of a will to combat sexual
promiscuity on the island of Mallorca, because several of the convicted worked as prostitutes and that there were almost twice as many convicted of simple fornication. There is no reason to assume that there was less prostitution in the Canaries than on Mallorca. That could explain the higher number of offenders in the simple fornication category.
19 2.4 Social and Economic Status
The livelihood of the accused is also a piece of information that the Inquisition’s trial records provide. The employment of the accused gives an inclination in the social and economic status in the society at that time and can give an indication whether the offence of heretical proposition was a crime of the high and mighty or the lower parts of society. To be able to separate the social and economic status of the convicted, they are placed into seven
categories. Slaves are the ones with the lowest social and economic status of the group of offenders created for this study. The primary sector contains the people that are listed as workers or labourers in the trial records, along with sailors and soldiers, as most soldier convicted in the RDC’s from both tribunals are listed both as soldiers and labourers. The category of artisans contains the convicted who were skilled craft workers, such as a
blacksmith. The idea of this category is to separate the artisans from the workers who just had the title of worker, therefore most likely unskilled labourers and placed under the primary sector category. The merchant category contains people specified as merchants, and the ecclesiastical category is where priests and brothers of different orders have been placed. The privileged group contains both people that clearly were of noble birth or heritage with the title Don or Doña, and others who were well educated and held positions within the Inquisition or high official offices. Such people include prosecutors, a captain of a galley, son of the
Inquisition’s secretary and the bastard son of a nobleman. The few people convicted who
Slaves 10 %
Primary sector 27 %
Artisans Privileged group 10 %
9 % Merchants
2 % Ecclesiastical
6 % Unknown
36 %
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC STATUS AMONGST
OFFENDERS IN THE CANARIES
20
worked for the Inquisition and is placed in this category, consists of two Familiars64 and two Alguacils65 in the Canaries. “The status of Familiar was considered an honour, and its ranks were often filled by nobles[sic.].”66 The status of Familiar was not filled with nobles, but mostly by hidalgos, who were part of the gentry, therefore one can say even though it was not filled by nobles, it was still a high-status role in the Spanish society.
The final category where the social and economic status is unknown is where most women with a few exceptions are placed. During the earliest RDC’s, a piece of information about the occupation or the social status of the victim is lacking. Hence those cases have been placed as “unknown”. The women have been placed in this category because it is problematic to say anything about their social status, as they do not have an occupation listed. The female offenders are only listed as unmarried, married or as a widow, which makes it hard to tell whether they are from the lower or upper social classes. In one specific case which will be presented later on in chapter 3.5.1, the convicted woman has the prefix Doña, which indicates nobility, and therefore she is not a part of the unknown category, but a part of the privileged group.
The diagram of the social and economic status amongst offenders in the Canaries shows that the unknown category, with 62 people sentenced where there is little to no conclusive information about their social and economic status. With 27% of the offenders in the Canaries during the 41 years being part of the primary sector, 47 in total. The privileged group along with the ecclesiastical together consisted of 15%, 25 people in total. Both the artisan category and slave category had 18 convicted offenders each, while there were only four merchants convicted. From those numbers, one can with certainty say that heretical propositions were an offence that all members of society were being prosecuted for in the Canaries, from slaves to theologians and even people working for the Inquisition. Do these findings coincide with those from the tribunal on Mallorca?
64 Familiar: “Lay representative of the Inquisition who acted as an intermediary between the tribunal and the prisoner and whose role was to provide denunciations.” Rawlings, The Spanish p. 158
65 Alguacil: “Arresting officer of Inquisition.” Rawlings, The Spanish p. 157
66 Anderson, James M. Daily Life During the Spanish Inquisition. London: Greenwood Press, 2002. p. 65
21
Just by looking at the percentage of the categories, one can conclude with a significant
difference between the two tribunals regarding the position held in society by those who were accused and convicted of heretical proposition. 142, which is 80% of the people convicted of having uttered a heretical proposition between 1579 and 1610 on the Balearic Islands were from the primary sector, or their status is unknown, while in the Canaries, that number is only 109, or 63%. Artisans is the only other significant group, with 17 people convicted. The remaining groups of slaves, merchants, members of the privileged group and the ecclesiastical consists of 17 individuals in total, as many as there were artisans convicted on Mallorca, or compared to the Canaries, one less than the total number of slaves. That brings these four categories to a total of 10% of the convicted on Mallorca, while in the Canaries, those four categories make up 27% of the offenders. The numbers reveal that the crime of heretical proposition was a crime dominated by members of the primary sector on Mallorca, whilst in the Canaries, there was more of an even distribution between the different social groups in society, although with a main emphasis on the primary sector.
From Mallorca, the RDCs from 1595 gives information about the heritage of the offender, whether they were an Old or New Christian. Almost every single case from Mallorca where the sources provide the religious heritage of the convicted, they are of Old Christian decent. Coinciding with both Kamen and Fajardo’s findings while researching the
Slaves 2 %
Primary sector 40 %
Artisans Privileged group 10 %
3 % Merchants
1 % Ecclesiastical
4 % Unknown
40 %
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC STATUS AMONGST
OFFENDERS ON MALLORCA
22
crime of heretical proposition that it consisted primarily of people of Old Christian decent.67 In the Canaries, however, there is little mention in the trial records if the accused is of Old Christian decent. When the religious heritage is presented in the RDCs from the Canaries, it is either in the few cases, mainly against slaves, where the offender is a New Christian. The other times is in the latest RDCs if the perpetrator is of foreign heritage, then the inquisitor specifies the accused as either Old or New Christian. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that in the cases where there is no mention of the religious heritage of the victim, they were of Old Christian decent. The notaries might not have felt the need to mention it in their report as it was not an unusual offender in this category.
One thing to bear in mind is that not every case contains as mentioned the profession or status of the convicted, and with being such an influential group in both tribunals, could potentially drastically alter the representation in this study. However, it is highly improbable.
If the social and economic status of the unknown offenders were to be known, it would most likely increase the domination of perpetrators from the primary sector. The logic behind such a statement becomes apparent when reading the actual sources. The first RDC from Mallorca starts in 1579, and almost half of the offenders profession or status is mentioned. While the subsequent RDCs, nearly every case contains the offender’s profession or status, with the exemption of the female perpetrators. Such is not the case in the Canaries. Here the first four RDCs, from 1569 to 1576, only a few of the cases mentions profession or status is mentioned, and when it is provided, they are either slaves, foreign sailors or prominent citizens. One can speculate if the cases where any mention of status has been omitted, the convicted were from the primary sector or artisans because, in the RDCs where there are few mentions of status, the few who have some information about their economic and social status are either from the lowest or highest social groups. If that, in fact, is the case, then the numbers from the primary sector would be higher, while the number of ecclesiastical, slaves and privileged groups would remain the same. However, there is no way to know for sure. Therefore the conclusion regarding status amongst the offenders has to be made on the grounds of the cases where the social and economic status were known, revealing a clear difference between the two
tribunals. In the Canaries, the offenders were from every part of society, while on the Balearic Islands, the person convicted of having committed a heretical proposition was more often than not part of the primary sector.
67 Kamen The Spanish Inquisition p. 260, Fajardo Las víctimas. p. 143
23 2.5 Punishment
“What are the differences and similarities in sentencing concerning the cases of heretical proposition between the two island tribunals of the Canaries and Mallorca from 1569 to 1610?” That is the question this study aims to give an answer, which naturally entails looking at the statistics of the punishment the offenders received in the Canaries and on Mallorca. To be able to compare the sentencing, using a grading system to show the severity of punishment seems to be the best way to do so. The grading system created for this master thesis ranges from one to five, where one is the mildest punishment, and five is the most severe. The problem lies in defining what qualifies as a mild punishment, and what qualifies a severe punishment? What is worse, a monetary fine, a spiritual punishment or a physical
chastisement? It is impossible to say if a person would rather have a monetary or a spiritual punishment, that would depend on their ability to pay, and their belief in purging the soul of sins. Such questions make it necessary to look at the different types of punishments and what grade of severity should be assigned to each type.
Before 1560, the small number of cases concerning blasphemy were dealt with
quickly, often with spiritual punishment and a fine.68 After 1560, the punishments got stricter, and the offenders often received the penalty of going out in the auto de fe along with the rest of the convicted or attending Mass where the same happened as in an auto de fe. The
convicted was often sentenced to appear at Mass in penitent form, with different specific clothing or objects with them to identify their offence to the crowd. Most of the time they were sentenced to go with a candle, sometimes with a gag in their mouth and other such specific articles. The offence and their sentence were also read aloud to the crowd. When not in an auto de fe, it was in most cases on a Sunday in the largest church in the area, where the crowd was largest.69 In some cases, the convicted is sentenced to attend Mass in penitent form on a work day, which would have meant a lesser crowd, therefore presumably a slightly lesser shame for the convicted.
The first degree, the mildest of punishments, has been assigned to the few cases that gave a warning as punishment, and in some cases spiritual punishment together with the warning. Cases where the accused had to attend Mass or the auto in penitent form, and or received spiritual punishment or a fine is considered as a second-degree punishment. The third-degree has been assigned to cases where the convicted, in addition to the punishments in the first and second degree, had to abjure de levi. Abjuration is the denial, disavowal or
68 Dedieu, ”El modelo” p. 212-13
69 Rawlings, The Spanish p. 37
24
renunciation under oath, made by the penitent heretic on the occasion of his reconciliation with the Church. “Abjure de levi” is the mildest kind of abjuration, made by a Catholic slightly suspected of heresy.70 Sentences such as public shame and additional objects like wearing a gag when in penitent form has been placed as a third-degree punishment. If the convicted was given physical punishment, for instance, a public lashing, they have been assigned as a fourth-degree case. Banishment from the area for more than six months
constitutes as a fourth-degree, while in some cases where the convicted was banished from a town for a month with little more punishment, it is listed as a third-degree punishment. The more severe abjuration, vehementi is also considered as a fourth-degree punishment.
Abjuration de vehementi is given to a Catholic when there has been a strong suspicion of heresy.71 The final degree contains the harshest punishment given out in these tribunals for the offence of heretical proposition during the sample in this study, which was the galley service. The amount of time sentenced does not show in this grading system, but the shortest was a man sentenced to three years, and the longest was for seven years. Moreover, as the inquisitors often pointed out in their report back to the Suprema, they were sentenced to galley service without pay.
The system is not without fault, and one might contest that the grading system does not show the nuances between severe sentences. A punishment where a person is ordered to be whipped 100 times is a fourth-degree sentence, as is a sentence where a person is
condemned to receive 300 lashes of the whip. The same is the case of a person banished for three years and another who is banished perpetually. However, the grading system would become too complex with too many degrees if every aspect were to be covered, the severity of punishment scale does show what it is designed to do, the general level of severity.
With all this in mind, it is easier to obtain a statistical overview of the tribunal's sentencing levels, and how and where the potential differences lie. Moreover, looking at the numbers, there is a significant difference in sentencing levels between the tribunals using this kind of grading system.
70 Meehan, Andrew. "Abjuration." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 1. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907. Read: 5 May 2016 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01044d.htm
71 Meehan, “Abjuration”.
